Slate Creek Mining Co. v. Sundt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding on evidence presented, that Pacific Gas and Electric believed that DOE’s proffered performance in the 1991 ACR, even with the capacity constraints of the 1987 amendments, would have satisfied its contractual obligations.
• noting there was no evidence that DOE’s commencement of performance at the 1991 ACR rates would have been a breach
• rejecting argument that a utility “failed to meet its burden of establishing when DOE was obligated to accept [PG & E’s] failed fuel . . . because it is possible that PG & E’s failed fuel would not have been accepted upon the [standard] OFF queue”
• “The court agrees with plaintiff that the government’s breach of the Standard Contract was a substantial causal factor in plaintiffs need to remove the off-gas equipment from Humboldt Bay.”
• “Plaintiffs loading costs have been deferred rather than avoided, and the court declines to engage in a guessing game as to whether such deferred costs will have increased or decreased by the time (if ever) defendant performs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).